• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Shouldn't spending a Trillion dollars require a referendum?

No,
do you really want people with average intelligence and 20something% college education making these decisions?
 
Originally posted by: halik
No,
do you really want people with average intelligence and 20something% college education making these decisions?
Click to expand...

I don't know, do you want them to pay for it?
 
No, government knows what is best for you. /sarcasm

Just sit back and take it. You'll be a better person for it, the government will tell you so.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
We elect officials to make decisions that represent our wishes.
Click to expand...

Winner!

We are a republic. We elect our representatives in the House every 2 years for this very reason - to make sure they are more easily held accountable to the people's wishes. Also central to this is the fact that these kind of bills are required to originate in the House and not the Senate. A referendum sounds nice, but the sheer size and population of our country makes it impractical. Hell, we still have trouble electing a single position! (POTUS)
 
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: BassBomb
Well? What do you think?
Click to expand...

I dunno, what about starting a ruinously needless war in Iraq?
Click to expand...

The the Dems voted for.
Click to expand...

That's a lie.

Bush always said - before the vote - that voting for the resolution 'was not a vote for war', but a vote to give the administration leverage to get inspectors back into Iraq.

It worked - and Bush then lied, kicked the inspectors out and started a war.

The measure authorized presidential use of force against the "continuing threat posed by Iraq." On October 8, 2001, on the eve of the vote in Congress, Bush delivered a major address to the nation on the Iraqi threat. He said: "Approving this resolution does not mean that the military action is imminent or unavoidable. This resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice."

This spirit of the resolution was reflected in speeches legislators from both parties made prior to the vote. Senator John Warner, Virginia Republican, said passing the authorization was important to convince Saddam Hussein that American and international resolve is "real, unshakable and enforceable if there is to be a peaceful resolution." Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat, said passage of the resolution made diplomatic success at the UN "more likely, and, therefore, war less likely."

The resolution was not a "war vote" because, at the time, the administration repeatedly claimed that Bush had not made the decision to use force. Rather, Congress voted for diplomacy. The congressional action was designed to strengthen secretary of state Colin Powell's position as he negotiated passage of the unanimous UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which put world pressure on Iraq to accept international inspections. These inspections, if allowed to run their full course, would have demonstrated Iraq was indeed disarmed.

Unfortunately, despite many public statements to the contrary, Bush was not interested in just ridding Iraq of WMDs. Instead, he focused on changing the Iraqi regime. Already in April 2002, he remarked to a British reporter: "I made up my mind that Saddam needs to go. That's about all I'm willing to share with you." That is why Bush did not let the inspections run their course and proceeded with determination in early 2003 to unseat the Iraqi leader.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: halik
No,
do you really want people with average intelligence and 20something% college education making these decisions?
Click to expand...

I don't know, do you want them to pay for it?
Click to expand...

Is that how this country worked? Since when did you rewrite the Constitution?
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: BassBomb
Well? What do you think?
Click to expand...

I dunno, what about starting a ruinously needless war in Iraq?
Click to expand...

The the Dems voted for.
Click to expand...

That's a lie.

Bush always said - before the vote - that voting for the resolution 'was not a vote for war', but a vote to give the administration leverage to get inspectors back into Iraq.

It worked - and Bush then lied, kicked the inspectors out and started a war.

The measure authorized presidential use of force against the "continuing threat posed by Iraq." On October 8, 2001, on the eve of the vote in Congress, Bush delivered a major address to the nation on the Iraqi threat. He said: "Approving this resolution does not mean that the military action is imminent or unavoidable. This resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice."

This spirit of the resolution was reflected in speeches legislators from both parties made prior to the vote. Senator John Warner, Virginia Republican, said passing the authorization was important to convince Saddam Hussein that American and international resolve is "real, unshakable and enforceable if there is to be a peaceful resolution." Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat, said passage of the resolution made diplomatic success at the UN "more likely, and, therefore, war less likely."

The resolution was not a "war vote" because, at the time, the administration repeatedly claimed that Bush had not made the decision to use force. Rather, Congress voted for diplomacy. The congressional action was designed to strengthen secretary of state Colin Powell's position as he negotiated passage of the unanimous UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which put world pressure on Iraq to accept international inspections. These inspections, if allowed to run their full course, would have demonstrated Iraq was indeed disarmed.

Unfortunately, despite many public statements to the contrary, Bush was not interested in just ridding Iraq of WMDs. Instead, he focused on changing the Iraqi regime. Already in April 2002, he remarked to a British reporter: "I made up my mind that Saddam needs to go. That's about all I'm willing to share with you." That is why Bush did not let the inspections run their course and proceeded with determination in early 2003 to unseat the Iraqi leader.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Come on Craig...you KNOW the truth has no place in this kind of discussion...:roll:
 
Originally posted by: halik
No,
do you really want people with average intelligence and 20something% college education making these decisions?
Click to expand...

We have people with below average intelligence in congress making decisions, how could a referendum be worse?
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: BassBomb
Well? What do you think?
Click to expand...

I dunno, what about starting a ruinously needless war in Iraq?
Click to expand...

The the Dems voted for.
Click to expand...

That's a lie.

Bush always said - before the vote - that voting for the resolution 'was not a vote for war', but a vote to give the administration leverage to get inspectors back into Iraq.

It worked - and Bush then lied, kicked the inspectors out and started a war.

The measure authorized presidential use of force against the "continuing threat posed by Iraq." On October 8, 2001, on the eve of the vote in Congress, Bush delivered a major address to the nation on the Iraqi threat. He said: "Approving this resolution does not mean that the military action is imminent or unavoidable. This resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice."

This spirit of the resolution was reflected in speeches legislators from both parties made prior to the vote. Senator John Warner, Virginia Republican, said passing the authorization was important to convince Saddam Hussein that American and international resolve is "real, unshakable and enforceable if there is to be a peaceful resolution." Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat, said passage of the resolution made diplomatic success at the UN "more likely, and, therefore, war less likely."

The resolution was not a "war vote" because, at the time, the administration repeatedly claimed that Bush had not made the decision to use force. Rather, Congress voted for diplomacy. The congressional action was designed to strengthen secretary of state Colin Powell's position as he negotiated passage of the unanimous UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which put world pressure on Iraq to accept international inspections. These inspections, if allowed to run their full course, would have demonstrated Iraq was indeed disarmed.

Unfortunately, despite many public statements to the contrary, Bush was not interested in just ridding Iraq of WMDs. Instead, he focused on changing the Iraqi regime. Already in April 2002, he remarked to a British reporter: "I made up my mind that Saddam needs to go. That's about all I'm willing to share with you." That is why Bush did not let the inspections run their course and proceeded with determination in early 2003 to unseat the Iraqi leader.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Agreed. However, this should probably be its own thread. Congress shirked its responsibility to either declare war or not, and various presidents over the past few decades have taken advantage of it. There is no such thing as an "authorization for military action". It is a made-up misnomer for what should properly be called a Declaration of War. If leverage is needed prior to going to war, then such a motion should be introduced and maybe tabled until said leverage is no longer needed, i.e. until crisis has been averted or it becomes clear that passage is necessary, whereby it is passed and bombs start falling. Congress is supposed to be heavily involved in these decisions, but they have effectively ceded their responsibilities.
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: halik
No,
do you really want people with average intelligence and 20something% college education making these decisions?
Click to expand...

We have people with below average intelligence in congress making decisions, how could a referendum be worse?
Click to expand...

Sadly, I have only to point to Kahleeforneeya's fucked up system as a prime example of how it could (and is) worse.

Special interests get propositions passed with no means to pay for them...so the money has to come from the general budget...which already has no money to pay for anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top